For far too long the Guttmacher Institute has been the sole go-to group for studies, policy, polls, and statistics on the life issue.

The mainstream media relies on Guttmacher as an unbiased source (NYT: “nonpartisan research organization on issues of sexual health”), when it certainly is not.

Founded in 1968 by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the organization is named after Alan Guttmacher, an ob/gyn who served as Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s first president from 1962 until his death in 1974 and also vice president of the American Eugenics Society in the 1950s (a position conveniently omitted from Guttmacher Institute’s bio of Guttmacher.) Guttmacher and Planned Parenthood maintain they parted company in 1977. But as recently as 2009 PP was still subsidizing Guttmacher.

So, now surprise, Guttmacher’s research findings always end up propping the culture of death.

But today brings good news. The Susan B. Anthony List has unveiled its new website for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, its education and research arm, which was formed in late 2011.

From SBA’s press release:

“We envision lozierinstitute.org as a crossroads for both new information and fresh analysis of policy questions that vex the modern world, centered on the value of human life and care for mothers, the children they carry, and the family,” commented Charlotte Lozier Institute president Chuck Donovan. “We will address topics from abortion, to population policy, advances in fetal medicine, health policy, and even end-of-life care. We will supplement and encourage existing organizations, as well as provide a balance to existing research organizations embedded in the abortion industry, by focusing on mid- and long-term topics where reflection and deeper examination can make lasting contributions.”

The institute is named for Charlotte Denman Lozier (1844-1870), a pro-life feminist physician who was a contemporary of Susan B. Anthony’s.

Do not post private personal information about yourself or others.(ie addresses, phone #s)

Violations will be deleted and you may be banned. Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.

Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.

Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls
to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They
reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.

Yes, Susan B. Anthony and Charlotte Lozier opposed abortion–but it is a flagrant misuse of history to insinuate that they were both paragons and advocates of what are now called “traditional family values.”

Listen to everything the SBA List is doing, then compare it to the reality of the early feminists, who *because they opposed abortion* supported sex education, family planning rights, and LGBT relationships.

@AllOurLives: I don’t think it’s fair to say that the early feminists supported sex ed/family planning because they opposed abortion. They supported those things for the same reason they supported the right to life: failure to do so is a tool of oppression. As people fighting oppression, they recognized the forms it takes. And I don’t see a lot of evidence for early feminists taking much of a position one way or the other on any LBGT issues.

I don’t think, however that SBA List is guilty of the things you’re accusing them of in the way you’re making the accusations (I took a brief look at your site, so I’m including that in the previous statement). Yes, they oppose sex ed as it is currently implemented in our schools because it is frequently sponsored by Planned Parenthood. Which is like sleeping with a snake in your bed, letting a scorpion ride on your back, assigning the foxes the guard the henhouse, and several other conniving predator animal similes. It also removes too much of the authority on sex education from responsible parents and places it in the hands of indifferent government. “Some parents won’t teach their kids about this,” is not a sufficient response, either. Some parents don’t teach their kids about money management, either. That is far more essential than sex ed (even virgins have budgets!), and far less often taught in schools. But that doesn’t make those parents abusive or neglectful. When the people arguing for sex ed as necessary begin making the same arguments for personal economics, then I will start taking their claims of being concerned for the welfare of children seriously. Until then, I suspect the agenda there is driven more by a desire to sexualize culture than help anyone.

I’m sorry, but I think I’m going to disagree with a lot of the statements you make. However, I do appreciate pro-life feminists, even when I disagree with them a bunch.

2 likes

Who Is Jill Stanek?

Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.

The “reversals” also show that the ingestion of medication abortion drugs is never a sure thing when it comes to terminating a pregnancy. While anti-abortion activists tout the alleged “high complication rates” of the process, what they conveniently leave out is that the most common complication is that the patient remains pregnant, and that the protocol needs to be followed up with D&C or vacuum aspiration abortion in order to end the pregnancy….

Why is the “reversal” apparently so successful then? Primarily it is because those who are trying to continue the pregnancy are already in the midst of a failed medication abortion to start with….

“There’s no evidence of any demonstrable effect of the ‘treatment’ these anti-abortion centers are marketing,” Dr. Cheryl Chastine, a provider at South Wind Women’s Center in Wichita, Kansas, said. “The medical literature is quite clear that mifepristone on its own is only about 50 percent effective at ending a pregnancy. That means that even if these doctors were to offer a large dose of purple Skittles, they’d appear to have ‘worked’ to ‘save’ the pregnancy about half the time. Those numbers are consistent with what these people are reporting.”

“[The abortion pill] binds much more tightly to the progesterone receptor, to block it than progesterone itself does…. So there really is not much evidence to indicate, I’m really not aware of anything, that by increasing the amount of progesterone you’re gonna somehow block the effect of this drug….

I think this is really outside of standard of care to just begin doing this kind of treatment, without collecting more rigorous studies about its effectiveness.”

Note: The function of mifepristone is to block progesterone receptors (which is why, in an abortion pill reversal, an extra injection of progesterone is given to counteract these effects). Mifepristone “directly causes endometrial decidual degeneration, cervical softening and dilatation, release of endogenous prostaglandins, and an increase in the sensitivity of the myometrium to the contractile effects of prostaglandins. Mifepristone-induced decidual breakdown indirectly leads to trophoblast detachment, resulting in decreased syncytiotrophoblast production of hCG, which in turn causes decreased production of progesterone by the corpus luteum (pregnancy is dependent on progesterone production by the corpus luteum through the first 9 weeks of gestation—until placental progesterone production has increased enough to take the place of corpus luteum progesterone production).”